NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, this administration's position on the climate crisis makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Below is the NewEnergyNews theme song until 2020.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

THOUSANDS OF NEW JOBS IN NEW ENERGY

Results from states with Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) provisions requiring utilities to obtain a percent of their electricity from renewables by a date certain strongly suggest that legislative mandates are the best way to incentivize New Energy development -- and the likely economic boon it would bring.

WHATIn separate interviews at Energy Policy TV events, Resch and Swisher described the enormous economic benefits available if and/or when political leaders pass legislation incentivizing New Energy in ways similar to those it has in the past provided to fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

WHEN- Resch expects 55,000 new jobs in the next 8 years from pending national energy legislation.- The wind energy industry is expected to grow 50% in 2007.

WHERE- Resch stressed the importance of tax credit extensions for renewables in the pending energy bill. - Swisher stressed the importance of a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) in the pending energy bill to mandate development of renewables.

WHY- Resch predicts 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs over the next ten years at solar energy’s present rate of growth.- The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) may create a training program for solar installation and maintenance.- New homes are being built with solar systems.- Governors and other state officials are lobbying wind energy providers and hardware manufacturers to establish businesses.- There are more than 6000 megawatts of new wind energy presently under construction in the US.

QUOTES- Resch: “Silicon Valley…is being renamed as ‘Solar Valley’ [because] those companies are making the transition over to solar as the next great high-tech growth industry and we have an opportunity to keep that industry here in the United States.” - Swisher: “[Wind energy] has been the second-largest contributor [of] new installed capacity behind gas for the last three years…[Future turbines, including a 7.5 megawatt machine is driving] towards the scaling up process.”

EMISSIONS RISING

This report documents the fact that while most of the worst case scenarios about the effects of global climate change are based on a 1.3%/year increase in GHG emissions, they have actually been rising at 3.3%/year since 2000.

But the likely cause is even more troubling. Forests and oceans have always acted as carbon sinks for the earth, absorbing and processing the natural emissions of everything from termites to dinosaurs. Thanks to the added burden of human emissions, the carbon sinks are now being overwhelmed. The result is less absorption of GHGs and more in the air, trapping heat and creating climate change.

Absent the world’s efforts over the last decade and a half, it could be worse. Absent more significant efforts by the most significant players (you know who you are, USA and China), it will get worse.

WHATHumankind is producing carbon dioxide (CO2), the most well-known of the greenhouse gases (GHGs), faster than ever. The earth is not absorbing it fast enough. The carbon dioxide is measurably accumulating in the atmosphere. The result is climate change.

WHEN- The new findings were published in the October 25 edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.- CO2 emissions were 35% higher in 2006 than in 1990.- In the 1990s, CO2 emissions rose at 1.3%/year. In the 2000s, they have risen at 3.3%/year.

WHEREClimate change is a global phenomenon. It is the result of GHG accumulation in the atmosphere. All regions will experience changes.

WHY- Rising sea levels, more frequent heat waves and wildfires, and huge losses of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic have already been observed. These are harbingers of much more significant changes, expected to affect millions.- This study compared changes in annual fossil fuel emissions from 2000 to 2006.The study’s authors linked the growth in emissions with 2 factors: (1) economic growth is coming less with energy efficiency; and (2) natural “carbon sinks” in the earth’s forests and oceans have lost the capacity to absorb and process the amount of emissions generated.

QUOTES- Field, Carnegie Institute: "Carbon dioxide is rising at a much faster rate than before…In the 1990s, CO2 emissions increased by about 1.3% per year. Since 2000, the growth rate has been 3.3% per year…Our ability to become more carbon-efficient is declining, especially since 2000…We're no longer seeing progress in this area, which is probably a reflection of a large amount of coal coming into the power system."- Canadell, CSIRO: “[The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts we will have temperature increases of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees by the end of the century…we're well on the way to the higher temperature increase if the emissions keep going up at this rate."- Conway, NOAA: "Carbon sinks were keeping up with the increased emissions, but now they're not…"

BUT WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE WASTE?

Nuclear energy does not emit climate change-inducing greenhouse gases and is not intermittent. On the other hand, it has enormous costs and radioactive waste problems that won’t go away for generations. About nuclear, it is really important to ask one simple question: Is this the infrastructure you want to build for your children and your children’s children?

Starting right now and using the same resources, it is possible to construct another kind of infrastructure. Yes, there are still problems to be solved in New Energy, wind and solar and waves and biomass and geothermal. But there are problems to solve with any kind of energy. Especially, as this article proves, with nuclear.

So, once again: What kind of infrastructure do you want to build for your children and your children’s children?

WHATThe panel recommended the Bush administration abandon its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which would expand the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity. The panel concluded there were too many potential dangers in the GNEP plan.

WHEN- The GNEP was signed by the Bush administration in early 2006.- The Panel’s recommendations were announced October 29.- The US has not involved itself in nuclear fuel reprocessing since the 1970s due to the risk of the plutonium being used for weapons proliferation.

WHERE- The GNEP proposed that a small number of nuclear nations, including the US and Russia, reprocess spent fuel and supply it to other nuclear nations for reactor fuel.- Nuclear reprocessing continues in Europe and Japan.

WHY- Reprocessing would partially solve the problem of what to do with massive amounts of nuclear waste that have accumulated in the last half century and will continue to accumulate from the use of nuclear energy for generating electricity. The waste will remain dangerously radioactive for decades, centuries and even thousands of centuries.- The panel found the GNEP depends on plans not adequately peer reviewed, reprocessing technology not yet proven or not yet ready for use (UREX). It also found GNEP was draining funds necessary for other areas of nuclear research as it rushed the creation of new nuclear power generation. - The panel expressed doubt the waste disposal issue in the US can be successfully resolved.- Congress has been reluctant to fully fund GNEP. The Bush administration asked for $395 million but only got $167 million. Long term costs: $20 billion to $40 billion.- DOE claims UREX will resolve costs and problems with waste disposal. The panel disagreed and urged DOE to take up "Nuclear Power 2010" to identify new nuclear plant sites and ready a new generation of light water reactors.

QUOTES- Panel: "All committee members agree that the GNEP program should not go forward and that it should be replaced by a less aggressive research program…[If GNEP proceeds as planned there will be] significant technical and financial risks."- Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman: “[GNEP] represents the future of global nuclear power cooperation…[and will] allow for a greater global reliance on civilian nuclear power to produce the electricity needed…"- Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, DOE: “[Most panel members accept the need to] close the fuel cycle…[though conclusions were] a misconception of the (GNEP) program…[DOE] fully recognizes the complexity and time needed. ... We are talking about something that will, in fact, take decades to develop."

BIOREFINERY IN KENTUCKY INCLUDES ALGAE

Alltech’s plans include growing algae for biofuel. Algae produce a biocrude with all the flexibility and ease of transport that petroleum crude has and a thousand or more times the land-use and water-use efficiency of any other biofuel.

WHATAlltech will build and operate a community biorefinery for the processing of biomass into biofuels.

WHEN- The biorefinery will break ground in February 2008 and begin operations 14 months later. - This will be the 1st switchgrass/biomass refinery in the US and the 1st of Alltech’s planned 5-6 biorefineries.

WHERE- Alltech headquarters is on Catnip Hill Pike in Nicholasville, Kentucky.- The 1st Alltech biorefinery, chosen from among 5 potential sites, will be in Springfield, Kentucky, where Alltech already has a plant.

WHY- The biorefinery is expected to cost $40 million and provide 93 jobs.- It will process cellulose (switch grass, corncobs, stalks, leaves, etc.) into biofuels like ethanol and other refined products.- The plant will get an $8 million Incentives for Energy Independence Act package from the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority including a sales tax refund, a state income tax wage reduction and a credit against state income taxes.- Alltech intends to use plant lands for beef and dairy cattle and commercial fish farming. The animal waste will be processed at the biorefinery into biofuels.- Finally, Alltech will develop algae for biofuels with an estimated annual 5,000 gallons/acre output. The algae will be used to filter carbon dioxide emissions.

QUOTES- Lyons, Alltech: "We are not Silicon Valley…We have to focus on our agriculture bases…The first is not the last…We see this as just one of many…Imagine Kentucky becoming not just the horse capital of the world but the algae capital of the world…"- Gov. Fletcher: "It's exactly what we wanted to happen as we developed our energy initiative three years ago…"- Kentucky Judge-Executive John Settles: "I don't see how we can lose…"

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

BUSH’S BODMAN BACKS MANDATES FOR NEW ENERGY

Make no mistake: NewEnergyNews is keenly aware that Bodman's shilling for ethanol and E-85 is misguided. But even Bodman knows that. On the subject of alternative fuels, he was quick to hedge his bet: "There is no one silver bullet here…We have to pursue a broad range of tactics."

But more significantly, by acknowledging the value of legislative mandates for renewable vehicle fuels, Bodman took away a big argument traditionally used by Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular against the national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). The RES is a mandate in the currently pending Congressional energy bill that requires US utilities to obtain 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Bodman admitted that sometimes a mandate is necessary: "Sure, I'd like to get things done without mandates…[But they have proven to be a requirement in order to get a lot of these things done more effectively…"

WHAT- In what may represent a huge break with the Bush administration’s previous position, Bodman acknowledged that legislative mandates may be necessary to spur growth in New Energy.- At the same energy conference, Dorgan announced legislation co-sponsored by Lugar mandating refineries to produce 36 billion gallons of biofuels/year by 2022 and automakers to manufacture 80% flex-fuel vehicles by 2015.

WHENThe Dorgan-Lugar legislation supports President Bush’s call for the US to cut petroleum-derived fuels 20% by 2017.

WHEREThe energy conference was in Bismarck, North Dakota.

WHY- It is hard to create momentum big enough to achieve the goals President Bush and other leaders call for without a legislative mandate guaranteeing businesses there will be a market for what they produce if they make the investments in new capacity. This principle applies to fuels as well as electricity. Both require large capital outlays for the building of infrastructure before producers can obtain returns. Mandates guarantee minimum markets and promises of returns.- Presently, the US has 6 million vehicles flex-fuel vehicles but only 2% of the nation’s gas stations sell E-85. Building more E-85 pumps would increase sales but it will cost a lot for stations to do so. The Dorgan-Lugar legislation would incentivize the creation of that infrastructure as well as pipelines and storage facilities to handle E-85.- E-85 pumps cost gas stations $80,000 - $150,000 and E-85 gives less miles/gallon.

QUOTES- Bodman: "Sure, I'd like to get things done without mandates…[But they have proven to be a requirement in order to get a lot of these things done more effectively…"- Rud: "Rather than a tax credit, (gas stations) would love to see some upfront money…Tax credits are of really no value to many of our marketers in North Dakota. We're not making money at the pumps. What would better suit our industry ... is something to help offset the (installation) cost…Right now, consumer demand is not there for the product…"

WHY- Suzlon is the world’s 4th largest wind tubine manufacturer. It began with the purchase of 2 turbines for its textile business in the 1990s. It sold the textile business and dedicated itself to wind turbine manufacture in 2001.- Tanti is one of Time’s "Heroes of Environment," along with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Prince Charles of Wales and former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev. Time said each had worked to address the pressing questions of sustainability.

WHY- The award recognizes a commitment to minimizing the factory’s environmental footprint and creating a great work environment for employees with the best possible physical space and indoor air quality.- The new 73,000 square foot potato chip facility: 18 wind turbines on the factory’s roof and other wind to offset 100% of electricity use, filtering and reusing 1.65 potato wash water, premium, high efficiency equipment to cut natural gas/electricity use, recycling cooking oil into biodiesel, 5 acres of native prairie land restoration, obtaining 35 percent of building materials from within 500 miles of the building site, Green Seal building material and extensive fresh air ventilation, natural light and outdoor views for all workers - One of the unique features of the Kettle Foods award-winning facility is the Architectural Wind installation from California-based Aerovironment. The brilliantly designed and configured miniturbines atop the Kettle building do for wind energy what the photovoltaic panel did for solar energy.

QUOTES- Fallon: “Investing in green building was a conscious decision on our part to demonstrate our values in a very tangible way…Our employees have always encouraged us to look at ways to minimize our impact on the environment – from rooftop solar power panels to biodiesel fuel from our used cooking oil. Sustainable initiatives are business as usual at Kettle Foods.”- Lindholm, Wisconsin Green Building: “Kettle Foods is setting a new standard for sustainable food manufacturing in the U.S…It’s demonstrating through action a commitment to the environment that goes far deeper than its leadership in the natural food industry. We hope other businesses look to Kettle Foods as an inspiration for their own facilities.” - Fallon: “Our factory is a great place to come to work. Nine out of 10 employees have access to daylight views throughout the facility, and the break room area occupies the best real estate in the building…”

WHATPuget Sound Energy’s parent company was acquired by the Macquarie consortium so as to fund new power plants and equipment. The consortium paid $30/share, a 25.3 percent premium over the stock price, driving Puget Sounds stock price higher than it has been since December 2000.

WHEN- The complex deal allows Puget Sound until Dec. 10 to get better offers. Already approved by Puget Energy's board, it won’t be complete until the second half of 2008 because it requires approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the state Utilities and Transportation Commission.- Successful in 2006 ($219.2 million earnings on $2.9 billion revenue), Puget Energy has struggled over the past five years.

WHERE- Macquarie is Austalian. The consortium includes three big Canadian pension funds, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, British Columbia Investment Management Corp. and Alberta Investment Management.- It took control of Pittsburgh's Duquesne Light Holdings this year and owns parts of Aquarion, a New England water utility, as well as a wireless tower operator, two Canadian port terminals and five U.S. and Canadian toll roads.- Puget Sound Energy has 1 million+ electric customers and 721,000+ natural-gas customers in the Puget Sound region.- The company will remain headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.

WHY- The medium-sized utility required major capital infusion for its plans to build 10 wind farms and 10 gas-fired power plants in the next decade. It anticipated difficulties raising enough money in public markets to fund these ambitious plans.- Though this may be a long term loss of revenue for the state, experts blame regulators for preventing Puget Sound Energy’s plans to develop in a way that would provide profits from new plants and equipment.

QUOTES- Reynolds, who remain as Puget Sound Energy’s head: "We need reliable access to capital, not just for the next couple of years, but over the long term…[The consortium] will have the patience, risk tolerance and sophistication to work with us to provide capital, steward our investments, and spur the innovation necessary to meet our energy challenges now and in the future…If you don't continue to spend, you find yourself in catch-up mode the way we are with roads and bridges…We think there's a better model than constantly going back to the capital markets year after year."- Jim Bellessa, utility analyst: "When regulators do not allow a utility to get an adequate return on investment, the capital goes elsewhere…"

Monday, October 29, 2007

CARBON CAPS: TRICKY; CARBON TAX: TREAT?

These editorials make the case for using a tax over a cap-and-trade system to control US emissions but skim over 2 important points. First, raising taxes is never politically popular so the perfect in this case may be the enemy of the good.

Second, the failures of the EU system may not be as significant as the editorials indicate. That system was designed to discover and work out flaws as much as to produce emissions reductions. Only the next round’s results will reveal the system’s success. And whatever flaws in cap-and-trade systems the EU discovered and continues to discover can only help to make the US system stronger.

What the editorials do make as clear as the Monitor’s preference for the tax is that the tax has its complexities, too.

WHERE- A tax would cover all uses of oil, coal and natural gas.- The Lieberman/Warner cap-and-trade proposal would focus on emissions in the transportation, electric generation, and manufacturing sectors.

WHY- Tax PRO:Economists favor the tax. It is more direct. Lawmakers prefer cap-and-trade. It does not directly impose costs.Connaughton, President Bush's top environmental adviser, backs the tax. Gore says he's always preached it.Taxes are direct. The cost of emissions is known.- Tax CON:Polls show voters opposed to taxes but rebates of the tax revenues (18% to those earning less than $20,000, 4% at $90,000 earnings) reduces the tax’s burdens while maintaining the incentive to cut emissions and convert to renewables.- Cap-and-trade PRO: Caps guarantee limits on emission increases. One business can only exceed its limits if another sells “permits” for doing so. Severe fines would prevent violating this. Lieberman/Warner will cap a company’s emissions and issue permits for a certain amount. Initially, permits will be free. Later, they will be auctioned, creating a trading market in permits incentivizing emission reductions. If a company example: coal-fired power plant) needs high emissions, it buys permits. A company that has invested in clean tech and therefore has lower emissions can sell credits to pay off its investment and reward its choice. Theoretically, emissions are reduced by the free operation of the marketplace and freely made choices by businesses using their own strategies.- Cap-and-trade CON:Europe's cap-and-trade system handed out far too many free permits, causing their value to fall from $30+/ton to $1/ton, making the incentive ineffective. Many industries hit by caps moved production outside the EU, polluting elsewhere. Even proponents of the 160 country Kyoto Protocol system set up in 1997 agree its carbon-cutting results have been unimpressive though Phase 2 (2008-2012) will close loopholes.

QUOTESThe Monitor explains why the carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade debate is important: "Economists agree that the real cost of burning fossil fuels – damage to the environment and health, not to mention the cost of replacing them as they run out – isn't reflected in today's prices… In most uses, traditional fossil fuels (oil and coal) are still far more abundant and inexpensive than cleaner alternatives (solar, wind, etc.), although their prices don't reflect environmental and health damages."

WHATRasmussen published findings from a survey on US attitudes about energy.

WHEN- The survey was conducted October 21-22, 2007- A survey from 2006 found that 44% of Americans believed most new cars sold 10 years out would be hybrids.

WHEREThe survey was national and conducted by telephone.

WHY- Rising oil prices means possible new attitudes about energy.- From the survey: “62% of Americans believe that the best way to meet the country's future energy needs is to develop alternative sources of energy…20% think that finding more sources of oil is the best way to meet future energy needs…12% believe that conservation is the right strategy.”- Also: “…78% of those surveyed think…it very likely that heating oil prices will increase this winter.”- And: “…68% think it…at least somewhat likely that gasoline prices will reach $4 per gallon by next summer.”

WHATEnergy Vampires gadgets and appliances that use power even when they're turned off, upping utility bills and generating greenhouse gases. The typical home has 20 Energy Vampires, 13% of this author’s bill.

WHENHome electronics use 75% of their total electricity consumption WHILE THEY ARE TURNED OFF!

WHERE- Homes and offices.- Low tech Vampire-spotter (from The TerraPass blog): Items that feel warm when not in use are wasting power.- High tech Vampire-spotter: Kill-A-Watt EZ, an electricity usage calculator.

WHY- Kill-A-Watt is easy to use, costs $60 online.- IPod, cordless phone and cell phone chargers don’t consume much.- Cable box uses the same amount of energy on or off. TV guzzles power in standby. DVD player uses 50% as much energy off as when used. Printer uses 88% of energy when off as when on. Plugged-in laptop uses as much energywhether charging or not. Desktop costs nearly $15/month on standby. - High Tech solution: “Wholehouse Switch” (see Ecogeek.org) at front door. Costs $1100. Takes $30/month savings to pay off in 3 years.

QUOTESAuthor: “For a lower-tech and lower-cost approach, do what my husband and I did: We've taken our [router and cable modem], which cost $2.61 a month combined when left running perpetually, and put them on a power strip that we turn off when we go away. We'll do the same for the TV, DVD and cable box -- and no more leaving the TV on standby…Turning off the power strips in our home offices when we go away can't hurt either. More important, we'll be turning off our computers and printers at night. And we won't leave our cell-phones and laptops dangling on their power cords for hours after they're recharged.”

WHATChina is better positioned than most other nations to withstand the rising price of oil without sacrificing growth due to 2 factors: (1) government subsidies to consumers financed by windfall taxes on its oil companies for all oil over $40/barrel, and (2) $1.43 trillion in reserves from booming exports.

WHENChina is expected with certainty to maintain its policies in the face of rising oil prices thru the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Most analysts believe the government will not let growth flag afterwards either.

WHEREThe cost of oil is an international matter. China’s ability to resist its negative impact comes from its booming exports to the US and Europe. It also offsets the problem buying cheaper oil from places like The Sudan as well as drawing heavily on its own domestic supplies of coal.

WHY- China’s foreign exchange reserves totaled $1.43 trillion at the end of September. - The IEA said Beijing will do whatever is necessary to sustain demand and maintain stability.- The dollar's weakness makes oil cheaper in other currencies. - China’s yuan, is set to the dollar but lower dollar rates stimulates China's export market. - Only about 10% of China energy comes from imported oil (3.3 million barrels/day). And less traditional sources (50.5 million barrels from The Sudan, January-August 2007) are cheaper. (Sudan Dar Blend is acidic and therefore cheaper than the sweet crudes required by US customers.) - One problem: China has only amassed 21 days of reserves (OECD countries: 53.5 days). And high prices are making it too expensive to expand strategic reserves quickly, leaving China vulnerable to supply disruption.

QUOTES- Simon Wardell, analyst: "There will be at some point a limit to [windfall taxes] unless (the companies) get additional funds from the Chinese government…"- IEA monthly oil market report: "The Chinese government will most likely do the utmost to keep the economy growing, through heterodox means if necessary…[Talk of rolling back subsidies or imposing a fuel tax on consumers] should probably not be taken at face value…"- Zhu Zhixin, Chinese planner: High oil prices "may encourage enterprises that use a large amount of oil to adopt energy-saving measures and reduce emissions to increase efficiency and economic returns…"- Keun-Wook Paik, Chatham House: "It has become very expensive to fill up those reserves…The Chinese government will sooner or later start to express their anxiety about the high oil price."

Sunday, October 28, 2007

BRAND NEW SUN IN ISRAEL

The genius of this concept is not so much in having invented something new as in having put together a variety of elements in a simple, streamlined system. Only real-world installations will prove its practicality and durability, especially because it has moving parts. But the device is modular, manageable – and its 79% efficiency (from combining heat energy and solar electricity) sets the bar pretty high for competing systems.

WHEN- The system is in development. A pilot system is under construction.- It is constructed from inexpensive, off-the-shelf and easy to manufacture components. It is easily transported and assembled.- The company was founded in 2004.

WHERE- Di.S.P. is based in Migdal HaEmek, Israel. Sun is one of the things Israelis know well. The system was developed as a result of work done at Tel Aviv University.- Di.S.P.’s concept is to have a rooftop filled with the small, durable, easy-to-maintain MCPV units.- Direct insolation (900 watts/sq meter) is expected to produce 200 watts of solar electricity and 400 watts of thermal power.- In areas of good insolation like the southwestern US, Spain, Italy, Australia and parts of China the cost could be 79% lower than utility energy prices, about 15 times better than flat panel photovoltaic systems.

WHY- The system has 4 components: (1) a support/tracker system with 2 motors and transmissions for 2-axis tracking of the sun; (2) a glass reflector that concentrates sunlight at a focal point; (3) an array of photovoltaic cells and a heat absorbing plate at the focal point; (4) a control subsystem.- Di.S.P. produces the highest levels of efficiency possible from solar cells (28-35% with 45% cells expected in 2007) and increases that efficiency to 78% by capturing and transforming the sun’s heat as well.- The tracking system allows maximum performance throughout the day by keeping the energy at the system’s focal point coming from the most direct possible sun.- A typical system of 100 MCPV units would require 350 sq meters of roof space and generate 20 kilowatts of solar electricity plus 40 kilowatts of thermal energy.- Di.S.P. calculates the solar electricity cost to be $1.50 to $1.75/watt and when the thermal energy is factored in the cost comes down to $0.90/watt.

QUOTES- Kaftori: “I have been involved in solar energy research and product development for over 12 years…I became aware of the adverse environmental impact of the oil economy, global warming, and pollution, and decided to try to do something about it…”- Kaftori: “…coming from Israel, a sunny country with little other energy resources, has made me aware of the potential and the need…” - Kaftori” “Di.S.P. can serve most aspects of the solar energy market because it provides two energy products (i.e., electricity and heat) with very high efficiency. It will be very economical…”

RUSSIA SELLS SAND TO CHINA FOR SUN

Silicon is derived from sand but requires sophisticated chemical processing. The worldwide silicon shortage is showing hints of easing as more players enter the field to service superproductive solar panel manufacturers like Trina and more veteran players, like the 7-decade-old Russian firm Nitol, build new facilities to expand their capacities.

WHERETrina, listed on the NYSE, is based in Changzou, China, and has customers in Germany, Spain and Italy. Nitol Group is based in Moscow and its production facility is in the Irkutsk region of Russia.

WHY- Nitol is a Russian chemical company currently producing trichlorosilane (the principal source of pure silicon) and is building a polysilicon facility.- Before this deal,, Trina had secured 60% of its 2008 polysilicon needs.- Trina’s focus is on the production of monocrystalline ingots, wafers and cells for assembly into solar panel modules.- Nitol’s focus is entirely on manufacture: trichlorosilane in the presence of hydrogen produces hydrogen chloride and silicon or trichlorosilane in water produces silicone and hydrochloric acid.

QUOTES- Jifan Gao, Trina: ''The cooperation with Nitol will enhance our production capabilities in the coming years and further our expansion goals…Trina Solar has a great deal of confidence in the success of Nitol's polysilicon production capabilities, as Nitol has the potential to become one of the top global manufacturers of polysilicon.'' - Dmitry Kotenko: ''The Nitol team is very pleased to work with Trina Solar as a long-term partner…Trina Solar is one of the leaders in the PV industry due to its vertically integrated business model and its experienced management team and we intend to grow our business more rapidly with Trina Solar as a customer.''

GERMANY TO FUND CHILE’S NEW ENERGY

Chile’s parliament will reportedly commit the country to obtaining 8% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. US Republican Senators say there are southeastern US states that cannot commit to obtaining 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Can they commit to matching Chile? (Does Tennessee need funding from Germany too?)

WHAT- Germany will invest US$126 million in Chilean renewable energy & energy efficiency research. The first US$11.5 million is donation while the US$114.5 million is a loan. - Chile will also become a founder country in Germany’s International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) intiative to promote worldwide development of renewable energy sources (solar, wind, biomass, wave/tide/current).

WHEN- The agreement was made October 10.- Chile’s first wind energy installation is expected to be tied into its national grid by the end of 2007.

WHEREChile’s current research is in geothermal, solar and wind energies, especially in remote areas. Its research projects are largely state subsidized.

WHY- IRENA will promote the development of renewables and support research in, planning in and technology transfer to developing countries. The German funding will be very helpful.- Chile’s National Commission of Energy expects the country to move from its present 2 megawatts of wind energy to 100+ megawatts by 2010. The German funding will be very helpful.- Chile’s parliament is presently considering a bill that would move Chile’s renewable-sourced electricity from its present 2.4% to 8% by 2020. The German funding will be very helpful.

QUOTESTokman, Chile: "The invitation to become a member of [IRENA] is a recognition of the work the government is doing to boost sustainable energy development in Chile by promoting non-conventional renewable energies and energy efficiency…"

WHATSakurai called for a carbon tax in Japan to help control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In response, the Petroleum Association said a carbon tax is an unnecessary burden on the economy and the government should ask voluntary measures of businesses.

WHENA carbon tax was originally proposed by the Keizai Doyukai in January 2006.

WHEREThe tax would apply to fossil fuels in a effort to push the country toward its Kyoto Protocol goals.

WHY- The carbon tax was proposed by Keizai Doyukai as part of a broad tax reform.- Nippon Oil Co. and other Japanese refiners said the tax would curb growth.- The country’s environment ministry would levy the tax on petroleum products: 2400 yen ($21)/ton of emissions for homes using kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas for cooking and heating. Factories would be taxed for coal, heavy fuel oil and natural gas. - Half of the Japanese gas pump price (currently 145 yen/liter) is tax. This includes an oil and gas taxation, a consumption taxation and a gasoline taxation.

QUOTES- Sakurai, for Keizai Doyukai: ``The country needs such an environment tax…We need higher rates of the carbon tax to be imposed on goods and services.'' - Statement, Petroleum Association of Japan: ``A carbon tax would be an unnecessary burden on Japan's economy…The government needs to find measures that prompt private companies to voluntarily step up efforts to reduce emission volumes.''

Al Gore on stopping global warming

Friday, October 26, 2007

MRS. HUTCHISON OF TEXAS: OBSTACLE TO ENERGY BILL

The provisions in the House version of the energy bill Senator Hutchison is concerned with remove protections from taxation of domestic and foreign oil and gas income. The protections were provided long ago to incentivize fossil fuel production when oil prices were low or unpredictable. The protections were sustained by a Republican Congress in the 2005 energy bill.

House Democrats would shift some of those incentives to producers of renewable energy. In lieu of a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) mandating that US utilities obtain a specified percent of their electricity from renewables by a date certain, House Democrats might settle for broad tax incentives and tax credit extensions for renewables. But that takes money. Senator Hutchison doesn't want it coming out of the pockets of her constituents in the oil and gas industry.

WHATHutchison admitted she is blocking Reid’s efforts to bring congress to conference on the energy bill until she is satisfied billions of dollars in incentives to oil and gas producers are protected.

WHENHutchison’s acknowledgement of her role came October 23.

WHEREHutchison is fighting provisions in the House version of the energy bill which the Senate rejected.

WHY- Huitchison is rumored to be planning a run for the Texas governorship and whould therefore need the support of the industry interests she is protecting.- The House energy bill provisions remove more than $11 billion in tax cuts to oil and gas producers over 10 years. - Reid announced last week he would be trying to put together a conference on the energy bill to work out differences between the House and Senate versions. - A compromise on auto fuel efficiency standards was reportedly reached last week.- Speaker Pelosi has said she will proceed without a conference. Senate Majority Leader Reid says there will be an energy bill "...one way or another."

QUOTES- Hutchison: "I am very concerned about pieces of the legislation, and I am holding it up right now…It is discrimination against one industry, and I also think it is coming at a time when we all know we need more refinery capacity…I am not saying I will keep a hold on it forever, because I will listen to those who think it will be better to have input in the bill, but at this point, I don't see a clear advantage to going to conference with this kind of stacked deck…" - Cornyn: "The concern is, of course, if we don't go to conference it will be ping-ponged back and forth across the rotunda, and we won't have any inputs on it… The fact of the matter is if it contains the tax provisions and perhaps other provisions the president is going to veto it anyway…"

BERZERKELEY TO FINANCE SOLAR

This is a really substantial idea and NewEnergyNews expects it to spread to many other municipalities, increasing home solar energy installations dramatically.

Everyone agrees solar is the homeowner's path to clean energy but everyone also agrees the cost, especially the upfront cost, is the obstacle. This could be the breakthrough. And, perhaps most exciting, this would open the door to all kinds of opportunities involving plug-in hybrid vehicles and V2G technology

WHATMayor Bates will introduce the Sustainable Energy Financing District measure for consideration by the Berkeley City Council. The measure would have the city pay upfront costs for home solar installations with the homeowners repaying the cost, with interest, by add-ons to property taxes.

WHENThe measure will be introduced November 6. If approved, it should be operational by mid or late 2008.

WHEREBerzerkley, CA. The City Council must first approve the financial aspect of the plan and then the legal aspects.

WHY- The biggest obstacle to solar system installation for most homeowners is the large upfront cost. This plan eliminates that problem.- The city would get its operating capital from bank and financial institution loans but interest rates it charges would be lower than regular bank loan financing of home solar installations because individual systems amount to small, expensive matters for the banks while the city arrangements would be large amounts.- The city hopes to keep the property tax add-on to about the same as the cost of the utility bill. If the homes are sold, the property tax add-ons would carry over to the new owner. - Interest rates, one-time fees, minimum project costs and the types of other energy-efficiency upgrades allowed under the program also are still being worked out.

QUOTES- DeVries: "You are borrowing money from the city, and the city is getting repaid through property taxes; that's how you would experience it as a homeowner…Our goal is to make putting solar on your house as cost-effective as paying your utility bill." - DeVries: "In many cases with solar, there is a positive rate of return if you look at it in the long term (because the money you save on electricity bills eventually will pay for the cost of the system)… The problem is most people don't operate that way financially." - Kammen: “[The plan is] incredibly clever…There's no question that the big issue for solar is the big upfront cost…This will allow you to spread it out over your property taxes…This is a loan that is much more accessible…And I think the mayor's assessment is right, that if the upfront cost goes away, we're going to see a huge wave of solar energy and efficiency projects."

BIG WIND MOVE BY BT

This project reportedly follows a trend in Europe, and especially the UK, where large businesses are taking advantage of their own open space and ubiquitous financing to develop New Energy sources on their own property where permitting is not a significant obstacle.

WHENThe project is expected to begin when utility financing is worked out and completed by 2016.

WHEREThe UK wind farms will be built on BT-owned lands, adjacent to other industrial projects, which should make permitting much simpler.

WHY- BT will eventually develop 250 megawatts of wind energy. This would equal 12.5% of the UK’s present 2 gigawatts of wind energy .- The wind energy would meet 25% of the telcom company’s electricity need.Cost, paid by utility-owners, is estimated at 250 million pounds ($512.5 million).

QUOTES- Lalani: "Our customers are very clear they want us to develop products and services using clean energy…"- Jonathan Johns, partner, BT advisors Ernst and Young: "There is a wall of capital out there for investment in renewables."

WHY- Heating needs will likely be reduced but cooling needs will be increased. Because some heating uses gas and oil while most cooling uses electricity, this pattern is likely to increase electricity demand.- Electricity transmission and distribution are likely to be significantly affected but further study as to how is required.- Reduced water supplies will have a variety of impacts. Loss of mountain snowpack will reduce the overall flow of rivers, reducing the supply of hydropower. It will also reduce water supplies available for power plant cooling.- Sea level rise could disrupt natural gas and oil supplies and refining.- The report suggests the development of renewable energies would mitigate warming. It also finds that changes in winds and insolation may require reconsideration of siting for such energies.- The report cites data that carbon trading to mitigate emissions and their affect on climate change could reduce energy costs for consumers.

QUOTES- From the report’s Executive Summary: "Climate change is expected to have noticeable effects in the United States: a rise in average temperatures in most regions, changes in precipitation amounts and seasonal patterns in many regions, changes in the intensity and pattern of extreme weather events, and sea level rise. Some of these effects have clear implications for energy production and use…"- From the report’s conclusions: (1) “Climate change concerns are very likely to affect perceptions and practices related to risk management behavior in investment by energy institutions…”(2) “Climate change concerns, especially if they are expressed through policy interventions, almost certain to affect public and private sector energy technology R & D investments and energy resource/technology choices by energy institutions, along with associated emissions…”(3) “Climate change can be expected to affect other countries in ways that in turn affect U.S. energy conditions…”

Thursday, October 25, 2007

SOLAR WANTS TAX CREDITS, EXTENSIONS FROM CONGRESS

NewEnergyNews suspected that rigid opposition from Republicans and splits among Democrats might require New Energy lobbyists to move away from talking about a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). In a possible sign of the times, this solar energy lobbying group says nothing about the RES and calls instead for tax credit extensions.

Vote Solar: “You’ve heard the old saw about laws, sausages, and the benefit of ignorance in the making thereof? Well then, consider yourself forewarned, because the effort to craft the biggest solar bill in US history is sausage-making at its finest…"

WHATVote Solar is organizing political action in support of investment tax credit (ITC) extensions and other tax incentives in the energy legislation now pending before the House and Senate.

WHENDifferences in previous energy bills passed by the Senate in June and the House in July are right now being reconciled by congressional leaders. Now is when the decisions are being made. Now is the time voters can have input.

WHERE- Vote Solar was born in San Francisco in 2001. It lives there and on the internet. - This poltical action pertains to national legislation pending in Washignton, D.C. At the Vote Solar web site, there are also actions pertaining to other legislation.

WHY- These are the measures Vote Solar is for:(1) 8-year extension of the 30% business investment tax credit (ITC) (in both the House and Senate bills);(2) 6-year extension of the residential ITC (in the Senate bill); (3) Eliminate the $2,000 limit on residential solar ITCs (in the House version);(4) Allow corporate and individual taxpayers to claim ITCs against the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) (in the House version).

WHATGE Energy has contracted to provide Energias de Portugual 281 wind turbines, a $730 million dollar deal. The day before, GE Energy announced a $350 million dollar deal with Third Planet Windpower LLC.

WHENThe EDP deal calls for GE to send turbines to EDP branches in 2008 and 2009. The Third Planet deal has GE providing turbines in 2009.

WHERE- The EDP deal has GE delivering to European and US projects. The Third Power deal will send turbines to Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska and Wyoming.- The machines will be produced at GE's facilities in Greenville, S.C.

WHY- The EDP deal is for 281 turbines, 80 2.5xl turbines for Europe and 201 1.5 megawatt units for US projects.- The Third Planet deal is for 167 1.5 megawatt turbines.

QUOTESAbate: "In the U.S. and around the world, we continue to see strong interest in the production of cleaner, wind-generated electricity…In the U.S. alone, more than 2,400 megawatts of new wind power was installed in 2006 while worldwide, more than 15,000 megawatts were installed, according to the Global Wind Energy Council."

MITSUBISHI & SHELL IN EMISSIONS CAPTURE CO-VENTURE

It is not as “New Age” and “New Energy” as solar and wind, but all the recent scientific studies have stressed the urgency of perfecting at commercial scale the to-now hypothetical and experimental concept of carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS).

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is the easiest part of the concept to prove and it may be a big car company and a big oil company who are doing it, but NewEnergyNews does not see any "greens" stepping up to prove these very expensive concepts.

On the other hand, there is reason to doubt "clean coal" is anything but an oxymoron.

It ought to get all the car company-oil company conspiracy theorists revved up anyway.

WHATMitsubishi and Shell will develop emissions capture from electricity generating plants for injection to enhance oil well production.

WHEN- The first contract for capture and oil well enhancement is expected in 2008.- The agreement between Mitsubishi and Shell developed out of a memorandum of understanding to work together established in December 2005.

WHERE- The current announcement does not specify a location for the projects but the 2005 memorandum of agreement indicated the strategic alliance would apply to business opportunities in the Middle East.

WHY- According to the companies’ research, each ton of CO2 injected to 1000 meters will enhance oil recovery by 4 barrels.- The companies say they will build capture facilities with a capacity of 10,000 tons of CO2, thus enhancing oil well recovery by 40,000 barrels.- The capture will be of power plant flue gases.

Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will ReCharge America by Sherry Boschert: "Smart companies plan ahead and try to be the first to adopt new technology that will give them a competitive advantage. That’s what Toyota and Honda did with hybrids, and now they’re sitting pretty. Whichever company is first to bring a good plug-in hybrid to market will not only change their fortune but change the world."

Oil On The Brain; Adventures from the Pump to the Pipeline by Lisa Margonelli: "Spills are one of the costs of oil consumption that don’t appear at the pump. [Oil consultant Dagmar Schmidt Erkin]’s data shows that 120 million gallons of oil were spilled in inland waters between 1985 and 2003. From that she calculates that between 1980 and 2003, pipelines spilled 27 gallons of oil for every billion “ton miles” of oil they transported, while barges and tankers spilled around 15 gallons and trucks spilled 37 gallons. (A ton of oil is 294 gallons. If you ship a ton of oil for one mile you have one ton mile.) Right now the United States ships about 900 billion ton miles of oil and oil products per year."

NOTEWORTHY IN THE MEDIA:
NewEnergyNews would welcome any media-saavy volunteer who would like to re-develop this section of the page. Announcements and reviews of film, television, radio and music related to energy and environmental issues are welcome.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades by Mark S. Friedman

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades, the second volume of Herman K. Trabish’s retelling of oil’s history in fiction, picks up where the first book in the series, OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction, left off. The new book is an engrossing, informative and entertaining tale of the Roaring 20s, World War II and the Cold War. You don’t have to know anything about the first historical fiction’s adventures set between the Civil War, when oil became a major commodity, and World War I, when it became a vital commodity, to enjoy this new chronicle of the U.S. emergence as a world superpower and a world oil power.

As the new book opens, Lefash, a minor character in the first book, witnesses the role Big Oil played in designing the post-Great War world at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Unjustly implicated in a murder perpetrated by Big Oil agents, LeFash takes the name Livingstone and flees to the U.S. to clear himself. Livingstone’s quest leads him through Babe Ruth’s New York City and Al Capone’s Chicago into oil boom Oklahoma. Stymied by oil and circumstance, Livingstone marries, has a son and eventually, surprisingly, resolves his grievances with the murderer and with oil.

In the new novel’s second episode the oil-and-auto-industry dynasty from the first book re-emerges in the charismatic person of Victoria Wade Bridger, “the woman everybody loved.” Victoria meets Saudi dynasty founder Ibn Saud, spies for the State Department in the Vichy embassy in Washington, D.C., and – for profound and moving personal reasons – accepts a mission into the heart of Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. Underlying all Victoria’s travels is the struggle between the allies and axis for control of the crucial oil resources that drove World War II.

As the Cold War begins, the novel’s third episode recounts the historic 1951 moment when Britain’s MI-6 handed off its operations in Iran to the CIA, marking the end to Britain’s dark manipulations and the beginning of the same work by the CIA. But in Trabish’s telling, the covert overthrow of Mossadeq in favor of the ill-fated Shah becomes a compelling romance and a melodramatic homage to the iconic “Casablanca” of Bogart and Bergman.

Monty Livingstone, veteran of an oil field youth, European WWII combat and a star-crossed post-war Berlin affair with a Russian female soldier, comes to 1951 Iran working for a U.S. oil company. He re-encounters his lost Russian love, now a Soviet agent helping prop up Mossadeq and extend Mother Russia’s Iranian oil ambitions. The reunited lovers are caught in a web of political, religious and Cold War forces until oil and power merge to restore the Shah to his future fate. The romance ends satisfyingly, America and the Soviet Union are the only forces left on the world stage and ambiguity is resolved with the answer so many of Trabish’s characters ultimately turn to: Oil.

Commenting on a recent National Petroleum Council report calling for government subsidies of the fossil fuels industries, a distinguished scholar said, “It appears that the whole report buys these dubious arguments that the consumer of energy is somehow stupid about energy…” Trabish’s great and important accomplishment is that you cannot read his emotionally engaging and informative tall tales and remain that stupid energy consumer. With our world rushing headlong toward Peak Oil and epic climate change, the OIL IN THEIR BLOOD series is a timely service as well as a consummate literary performance.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction by Mark S. Friedman

"...ours is a culture of energy illiterates." (Paul Roberts, THE END OF OIL)

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, a superb new historical fiction by Herman K. Trabish, addresses our energy illiteracy by putting the development of our addiction into a story about real people, giving readers a chance to think about how our addiction happened. Trabish's style is fine, straightforward storytelling and he tells his stories through his characters.

The book is the answer an oil family's matriarch gives to an interviewer who asks her to pass judgment on the industry. Like history itself, it is easier to tell stories about the oil industry than to judge it. She and Trabish let readers come to their own conclusions.

She begins by telling the story of her parents in post-Civil War western Pennsylvania, when oil became big business. This part of the story is like a John Ford western and its characters are classic American melodramatic heroes, heroines and villains.

In Part II, the matriarch tells the tragic story of the second generation and reveals how she came to be part of the tales. We see oil become an international commodity, traded on Wall Street and sought from London to Baku to Mesopotamia to Borneo. A baseball subplot compares the growth of the oil business to the growth of baseball, a fascinating reflection of our current president's personal career.

There is an unforgettable image near the center of the story: International oil entrepreneurs talk on a Baku street. This is Trabish at his best, portraying good men doing bad and bad men doing good, all laying plans for wealth and power in the muddy, oily alley of a tiny ancient town in the middle of everywhere. Because Part I was about triumphant American heroes, the tragedy here is entirely unexpected, despite Trabish's repeated allusions to other stories (Casey At The Bat, Hamlet) that do not end well.

In the final section, World War I looms. Baseball takes a back seat to early auto racing and oil-fueled modernity explodes. Love struggles with lust. A cavalry troop collides with an army truck. Here, Trabish has more than tragedy in mind. His lonely, confused young protagonist moves through the horrible destruction of the Romanian oilfields only to suffer worse and worse horrors, until--unexpectedly--he finds something, something a reviewer cannot reveal. Finally, the question of oil must be settled, so the oil industry comes back into the story in a way that is beyond good and bad, beyond melodrama and tragedy.

Along the way, Trabish gives readers a greater awareness of oil and how we became addicted to it. Awareness, Paul Roberts said in THE END OF OIL, "...may be the first tentative step toward building a more sustainable energy economy. Or it may simply mean that when our energy system does begin to fail, and we begin to lose everything that energy once supplied, we won't be so surprised."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.